About Hillary's boast of being 2.5 million "popular votes" ahead of Bernie

[Tom Rinaldo]

First, the obvious: Clinton is mixing apples and oranges by conflating caucus totals with primary totals. Sanders has been winning most of the caucuses to date and Hillary has won most of the primaries. For many reasons caucus vote totals are always suppressed by that specific format compared to voter participation in a primary, starting with the fact that voters must be present at their caucus site at a specific hour rather than having the entire day to make it to their polling place during a primary. We actually have a good case in point of the difference it makes in turn out: Washington State.

For some reason, Washington actually holds both a Democratic caucus and a primary. The caucus comes first and that's where delegates really are won, the primary comes later and is only a "beauty contest". In 2008 Barack Obama won both of them. But even though the 2008 Washington State Primary was essentially meaningless, Obama still collected ten times as many popular votes in the Washington primary than he did in the Washington caucus. Obviously Clinton got more popular votes in the primary than she did in the caucus there also - but factored in sheer raw numbers Obama defeated her by far higher popular vote numbers in the primary than in the caucus - in the same state. Though his ultimate winning percentage may have differed, either higher or lower, had the states that Bernie won in caucuses held primaries instead, there is no plausible reason to believe that the outcomes would have been different - Sanders has been winning those states in massive blow outs. Had they been primaries instead Sanders raw popular vote victory margins in them would have been much higher.

Second, the actual math. We are about mid way though the nominating contests, and the first half of the schedule strongly favored Clinton with its emphasis on Southern states voting early. In 2008 Hillary Clinton picked up over a million more popular votes than Obama won in the states that will be voting this year on April 19th alone. And no, one can not simply assume she will have an advantage in those states this year also. If one were to predict Clinton's 2016 results based on 2008 outcomes, she would be the one well behind in popular votes now based on Obama's 2008 performance in Southern states. Every election cycle is unique.

And of course the overall popular vote count doesn't include Wisconsin either, or a slew of other upcoming states including, for instance, California and Oregon. In 2008 Hillary won California - our most populous state. This year I believe it will be Bernie piling up the votes there instead.

[JoePhilly]

1. So the popular vote count only matters if Bernie is leading?

That's how this reads.

[hereforthevoting]

2. That seems like a very specific suggestion

I feel this op is really about that 2.5 claim.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. That was not my intended "reading"

I'm not sure why it seems that way to you. Because we have a mixed caucus/primary system, I think that popular vote leads are simply misleading, period. But that problem is aggravated by any attempt to do a freeze fame count and then boast about it. The latter is why elections often are not called by a network even though "with half the vote counted" one candidate may have a clear lead.

I think Hillary is on much firmer ground ground in boasting about her pledged delegate lead to date. That is clear cut and meaningful, but again - all of the results are obviously not yet in.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. As an Obama supporter you should remember all the very pointed language out of Axelrod and Plouffe

and Obama mocking the idea of trying to use popular vote counts in a delegate based race. They derided the very concept and rightfully. In 08 Hillary also did poorly in caucus States. That time it was Obama's damn fault!

Here is some 2008 chatter about how dubious primary counts of popular votes are:

Obama said delegates are the most important factor in determining the winner.
"I guess there have been a number of different formulations that the Clinton campaign has been trying to arrive at to suggest that somehow they're not behind," he told reporters traveling with him Wednesday. "I'll leave that up to you guys. If you want to count them for some abstract measure, you're free to do so."
The other problem with counting the popular vote is that states that held caucuses aren't included at all - Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine. Those four states don't have a popular vote total to include - instead they count the number of delegates elected for each candidate to determine who wins. And those states are relatively small, Obama won every one except Nevada.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-obama-both-claim-lead-in-votes/


Same song. Different year.....

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. I remember that. Thanks for sourcing it n/t

[Zen Democrat]

4. The popular vote in primaries is an meaningless as the popular vote in the Electoral College.

Hillary's comments are irrelevant. You can't quantify the caucus votes, so it's apples and bananas.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. Precisely - on both counts. n/t

[Renew Deal]

6. You have to wonder if Hillary would have won the caucuses if they were primaries.

Bernie is hanging on by an unrepresentative process where fewer people vote, not more.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. You can - I don't

His victory margins have been huge - I don't doubt for a second his popularity in States like Washington and Hawaii, I have seen nothing to indicate otherwise. Like I wrote above, the pattern for example was the same in the Washington State primary and caucus in 2008 - Obama swamped both.

[cosmicone]

8. Hillary has treated Bernie with kid gloves

If Hillary had gone full Trump on Bernie, he would have been gone after NH.

[tabasco]

11. Cuz she got nuthin'

Maybe you can inform us of how Clinton would attack Sanders on policy points.

"No we can't" doesn't seem to be putting Sanders away.

[AgingAmerican]

20. She has thrown the kitchen sink at him

Problem is all she has are a couple single decades old votes to cling to and she is gaining no traction

[cosmicone]

21. She has not brought up his time in the marxist kibbutz

and his visits to Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega.

She has not brought up his statements showing the disdain for the democratic party.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

23. any Jewish people want to reply to this before it gets hidden?

Marxist kibbutz?!

[CorporatistNation]

24. WOW! Other Way Around Most Objective Observers Would Submit... Take A Look At THIS!!

&list=RDUcGrzbxRaxs&index=1

[DemocraticWing]

9. The popular vote is pretty meaningless until the end of the primaries.

Without a full dataset it's not really worth much attention. Perhaps Hillary will win the popular vote by a lot, I'm sure her supporters believe she will. But saying she's won it now would be about like saying Republicans have "won" the popular vote in general elections before the West Coast reports. Gotta have a full dataset.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Of course. PLUS there is the distortion in totals due to adding caucuses and primaries n/t

[Red Oak]

12. Hillary also received the most votes in the 2008 Democratic primaries

How's that working out for you?

Change happens.

The Clinton's are a loaf of stale bread.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. Correct, in large part due to the fact Obama won most caucuses and so...

...his "popular vote" totals were systematically lower due to that major election process variable.

I'm a Bernie supporter by the way so I am not definitely not obsessed over who is leading in "popular votes" right now.

[liberal_at_heart]

14. just another way for her campaign to twist and manipulate things as usual.

[Gwhittey]

15. IF you steal your issues from underdog

And he is nipping at your heals after you won because of your name and lying to African Americans, then you have to use a fake total to seem like you are the most popular. Hillary is not stupid she knows if Sanders is actually heard then people would go for him because he just sounds honest compared to her. That is why she was refusing to debate in NY. Most people don't pay attention to primary until close to the date they vote and Hillary does not want people to watch a debate and learn Sanders has good issues and that she is a copy I'm with him for now.

[ibegurpard]

17. Good argument for scrapping the delegate system

[KingFlorez]

18. California could end up like Arizona and Nevada

Not so much Nevada, since that was a caucus. I fully expect Clinton to win big in California, mainly because of SoCal and Los Angeles County.

[MessiahRp]

22. I don't see that happening at all

AZ ended up in Clinton's favor because a ton of Independents who came out to vote for Bernie had their registrations flipped and Maricopa County actively engaged in voter suppression. CA is going to be MUCH closer than that without some sort of fraud and possibly a fairly even delegate split.

[grossproffit]

25. A ton of registered Dems for Clinton showed up as Independents in Maricopa and Gila counties.

You can't be an "Independent" and vote in Arizona's primaries. You need to be either a registered Democrat or Republican.

The people I know are registered Democrats who were showing up as Independents on voting day. They submitted provisional ballots, that probably weren't even counted towards HRC's total.

[NWCorona]

27. I think the poster meant independents that registered as Dems but we're still flipped

Like this

[w4rma]

26. Sanders will win California. Clinton doesn't have the money to campaign there. (nt)

[amborin]

28. KNR

[tritsofme]

29. The fact that caucuses are a form of voter supression and disenfranchisement does not change the

fact that Hillary has a substantial lead in the national popular vote. Barely 25k people were able to participate in Washington, and we talk about it like it was some incredible blow out.

The national popular vote actually puts these unrepresentative low turnout caucus contests in the proper context by separating them from their outsize delegate totals, giving you a view of the actual people who are supporting the candidates.

[oregonjen]

31. Where did you get your number of 25,000? I read an estimate of 230,000 people

http://www.wa-democrats.org/page/2016-democratic-caucuses

[strategery blunder]

32. Ignorance that the reported count is county/leg district level delegates, not popular vote

Common mistake (or possibly willful misrepresentation) that Hillary supporters make.

Their response after having that mistake corrected is usually telling as to motive.

[oregonjen]

34. Yeah, I know, I was giving the poster the benefit of the doubt

Hillary supporters post lies and don't think anything of it.

[Gothmog]

30. The math is the math and the fact that Sanders supporters dislike this math is amusing

Sanders is behind Clinton by 2.5 million popular votes and the above attempt to ignore this fact was weak but funny

[BernieforPres2016]

33. Hillary and her team don't understand the current political climate

These absurd claims go straight to the internet, where they are immediately blown up and add to the perception that she is a liar. For people who are supposedly smart, they act awfully stupid.